find_agents

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It hints at a read operation with 'public profiles,' but doesn't disclose pagination, result limits, ordering, or what happens when the filter matches nothing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, well-front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It could be slightly more informative without bloat, but the economy is fine.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the operation and filter but leaves the return shape and matching semantics unstated, which an agent would need to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'capability' parameter, but the description does explain it matches a substring. That compensates somewhat for the empty schema, though it omits case-sensitivity or matching behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (discover/find) and resource (registered agents, public profiles), which is fairly clear. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like register_agent explicitly, but most siblings serve different domains (escrow, messaging) so confusion is unlikely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description notes an optional filter but offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It implies read-only browsing but doesn't state prerequisites or how results should be interpreted.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.